Hillary Clinton

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by chadk66

Just exactly what would it take if anything?

Now you are talking blasphemy. The only way the True Believers don't vote for Hillary is if she pulls out of the race. Period.

[Tom]

Does the Constitution put any health requirements on the presidency?

I KNOW there are no tax form revelation requirements, only in the feeble minds of the left. (Most have never seen a 1040 and would have no idea how to read it!)

[chadk66]

Originally Posted by Clocker

Now you are talking blasphemy. The only way the True Believers don't vote for Hillary is if she pulls out of the race. Period.

And then they'll write her in

[Tor Ekman]

Originally Posted by mostpost

You have just forfeited all rights to be taken seriously.

Of course my scenario is ridiculous . . . but can we get you on record that you would not be in support of such a power grab by Obama under such circumstances??? BTW, even if you were to say now that you wouldn't support it, I'd be willing to wager that if it came to pass, you'd be the biggest defender of such an unconstitutional power grab, being such a pathetic kool-aid drinking apologist as you are . . . you'd probably even don a brown shirt for the occasion.

[davew]

Originally Posted by chadk66

I have to ask. What exactly would it take to come out that would finally make you jump off the Hillary ship? Or are you in the tank for her regardless of what she may have done, etc. I mean any rational person would have to have a tipping point when it comes to something like this. Or are you simply irrational? Would it take something as serious as the FBI arresting her for hiring a hit on some or all of those people that have died that are close associates of the Clinton mafia. Just exactly what would it take if anything?

R U serious? the hardcore will vote for her even if she is DEAD (but still on the ballet). The Alinsky followers are leading a revolution and do not care what it takes to make the world 'perfect'.

[Clocker]

Hillary will have a really transparent administration. Really.

On Sunday’s Meet the Press, vice presidential nominee Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) helped explain away running mate Hillary Clinton’s e-mail “mistake” and told NBC's Chuck Todd that going forward, the two plan on being “real transparent.”

"I know that is this something that she's learned from, and we're going to be real transparent, absolutely,” Kaine assured, with an absolutely straight face.

Kaine also said that Hillary was not lying about not lying, at least not in the context that she was thinking about. Which might have been a different context from that of the rest of the real world.

"She was saying what Director Comey acknowledged to be true, that when she spoke to the FBI ... the FBI thought her answers in that setting were truthful. Chris (Wallace) might have been asking her a different question."

http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/kaine-and-hillary-white-house-were-going-be-real-transparent

[chadk66]

Originally Posted by davew

R U serious? the hardcore will vote for her even if she is DEAD (but still on the ballet). The Alinsky followers are leading a revolution and do not care what it takes to make the world 'perfect'.

It would be fitting because dead people will be voting for her.

[chadk66]

Could you imagine how bad she would get beaten if the press wasn't campaigning for her

[Parkview_Pirate]

This guy is usually pretty lucid on his economic commentary, but the initial read here is he's gone 'round the bend. But since it outlines a reason why Hillary can lose, it's an enjoyable read.

http://www.oftwominds.com/blogaug16/...llary8-16.html

As a result, it's widely accepted that the Deep State fully supports Hillary Clinton's bid for the presidency and will move heaven and earth to get her elected. While this is a logical premise, I suspect it's overly simplistic. I suspect major power centers in the Deep State are actively sabotaging Hillary because they've concluded she is a poisoned chalice who would severely damage the interests of the Deep State and the U.S.A.

Poisoned chalice: something that seems very good when it is first received, but in fact does great harm to the person/ institution/ nation that receives it.

I realize this may strike many as ludicrous, but bear with me as we work through the notion that the Deep State would prefer Trump to Hillary.

So how could the forward-looking elements of the Deep State sabotage Hillary? I can think of several ways:

1. Engineer a protracted stock market decline that hits American voters in their pocketbooks before the election by gutting the "wealth effect." A plunging stock market would make a mockery of the claim that the economy is "recovering."

2. Continue to leak dirty laundry on Hillary, her health, the Clinton foundation scams, etc.

3. Put the word out to the corporatocracy, top-level media, etc., that the Deep State would prefer a Trump presidency, despite the widely held assumption that Clinton is the shoo-in Establishment candidate, and that those who cling to Hillary will pay a price later on as the neo-cons are cashiered or sent to Siberia for their failures.

Maybe Hillary is the Deep State's shoo-in for president. But I suspect doubts in the Deep State have advanced to active sabotage for the reasons noted above.

[Parkview_Pirate]

Originally Posted by mostpost

You have just forfeited all rights to be taken seriously.

That's rich, coming from the guy who could save a lot of typing by just adding links to the DNC's websites on issues and game plan.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by jk3521

Wow , she has tripped or fallen four times (recorded) in the past six years. How many times has any one of us tripped or fallen over the past six years .

She could be a star on "Americas Home Videos".

I bought a shoe that was a little tight on my left foot and I lost a toenail. Which is one big reason I decided it was time to put my dreams of the presidency to bed. As Clint said, a man's gotta know his limitations.

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by chadk66

Could you imagine how bad she would get beaten if the press wasn't campaigning for her

The press isn't left wing bias. If anything it is what stories sell bias. This gives credence to stories like the Benghazi lawsuit which nonsense favors right wingers. I'm amazed at this conspiracy theory that Reagan stirred up using the press. Just think about it for a second. How else would you right wingers know about Benghazi, secret plans of Hillary revoking the second amendment, or the left bias press? You heard it through a left wing press. If it was a left wing press, you would of never heard it.

Fools!

[rastajenk]

Originally Posted by mostpost

You have just forfeited all rights to be taken seriously.

Regarding Al's comment above.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Clinton Foundation/Hillary Corruption? Source: NY Times

"WASHINGTON — A new batch of State Department emails released Tuesday showed the close and sometimes overlapping interests between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department when Hillary Clinton served as secretary of state

The documents raised new questions about whether the charitable foundation worked to reward its donors with access and influence at the State Department, a charge that Mrs. Clinton has faced in the past and has always denied."

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politi...z&OCID=DELLDHP

[Saratoga_Mike]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

The press isn't left wing bias. If anything it is what stories sell bias. This gives credence to stories like the Benghazi lawsuit which nonsense favors right wingers. I'm amazed at this conspiracy theory that Reagan stirred up using the press. Just think about it for a second. How else would you right wingers know about Benghazi, secret plans of Hillary revoking the second amendment, or the left bias press? You heard it through a left wing press. If it was a left wing press, you would of never heard it.

Fools!

There's absolutely a bias, but it isn't a grand conspiracy against conservatives/Reps. Those attracted to a journalism career, in general, are left of center. As a result, their personal biases seep into their coverage. If you disagree with this, just Google how journalists have voted in major elections over the past 20 yrs (surveys exist). Again, it's isn't a conspiracy, just reality.

On one point, we agree. A real journalist, whether they're right or left-wing, wants a story that sells.